Kin preference in a social microbe

Mehdiabadi, Natasha J.; Jack, Chandra N.; Farnham, Tiffany Talley; Platt, Thomas G.; Kalla, Sara E.; Shaulsky, Gad; Queller, David C.; Strassmann, Joan E.

doi:10.1038/442881a

Cited by 183 publications

(119 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

119

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A couple of studies found some evidence for sorting, particularly between clones collected far apart (58) or, in another study, particularly between clones found close together (59). Neither approached the levels of sorting found in another species, Dictylostelium purpureum (60).…”

Section: Control Of Cheatingmentioning

confidence: 85%

Evolution of cooperation and control of cheating in a social microbe

Strassmann

Queller

2011

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

Self Cite

184

190

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Much of what we know about the evolution of altruism comes from animals. Here, we show that studying a microbe has yielded unique insights, particularly in understanding how social cheaters are controlled. The social stage of Dictylostelium discoideum occurs when the amoebae run out of their bacterial prey and aggregate into a multicellular, motile slug. This slug forms a fruiting body in which about a fifth of cells die to form a stalk that supports the remaining cells as they form hardy dispersal-ready spores. Because this social stage forms from aggregation, it is analogous to a social group, or a chimeric multicellular organism, and is vulnerable to internal conflict. Advances in cell labeling, microscopy, single-gene knockouts, and genomics, as well as the results of decades of study of D. discoideum as a model for development, allow us to explore the genetic basis of social contests and control of cheaters in unprecedented detail. Cheaters are limited from exploiting other clones by high relatedness, kin discrimination, pleiotropy, noble resistance, and lottery-like role assignment. The active nature of these limits is reflected in the elevated rates of change in social genes compared with nonsocial genes. Despite control of cheaters, some conflict is still expressed in chimeras, with slower movement of slugs, slightly decreased investment in stalk compared with spore cells, and differential contributions to stalk and spores. D. discoideum is rapidly becoming a model system of choice for molecular studies of social evolution.kin selection | kin recognition | multicellularity | major transitions

show abstract

Section: Control Of Cheatingmentioning

confidence: 85%

Evolution of cooperation and control of cheating in a social microbe

Strassmann

Queller

2011

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

Self Cite

184

190

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…† Facultatively multicellular species, which can remain in their unicellular state for many generations, without the need to form a multicellular fruiting body, which they do only under certain harsh conditions to increase dispersal success (no mutual dependence) (37). Sufficient conflict to select for noncooperative cheats, and within-group kin discrimination (68,69). ‡ Facultatively eusocial species, where queens are still able to breed if the workers/soldiers are removed (no mutual dependence).…”

Section: What Conditions Favor Cooperation?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Major evolutionary transitions in individuality

West

Fisher

Gardner

et al. 2015

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

294

373

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The evolution of life on earth has been driven by a small number of major evolutionary transitions. These transitions have been characterized by individuals that could previously replicate independently, cooperating to form a new, more complex life form. For example, archaea and eubacteria formed eukaryotic cells, and cells formed multicellular organisms. However, not all cooperative groups are en route to major transitions. How can we explain why major evolutionary transitions have or haven't taken place on different branches of the tree of life? We break down major transitions into two steps: the formation of a cooperative group and the transformation of that group into an integrated entity. We show how these steps require cooperation, division of labor, communication, mutual dependence, and negligible within-group conflict. We find that certain ecological conditions and the ways in which groups form have played recurrent roles in driving multiple transitions. In contrast, we find that other factors have played relatively minor roles at many key points, such as within-group kin discrimination and mechanisms to actively repress competition. More generally, by identifying the small number of factors that have driven major transitions, we provide a simpler and more unified description of how life on earth has evolved.T he evolution of life, from simple organic compounds in a primordial soup to the amazing diversity of contemporary organisms, has taken roughly 3.5 billion years. How can we explain the evolution of increasingly complex organisms over this period? A traditional approach has been to consider the succession of taxonomic groups, such as the age of fishes giving rise to the age of amphibians, which gave way to the age of reptiles, and so on. Although this approach has some uses, it is biased toward relatively large plants and animals and lacks a conceptual or predictive framework, in that it suggests we look for different explanations for each succession (1).Twenty years ago, Maynard Smith and Szathmáry (2) revolutionized our understanding of life on earth by showing how the key steps in the evolution of life on earth had been driven by a small number of "major evolutionary transitions." In each transition, a group of individuals that could previously replicate independently cooperate to form a new, more complex life form. For example, genes cooperated to form genomes, archaea and eubacteria formed eukaryotic cells, and cells cooperated to form multicellular organisms (Table 1).The major transitions approach provides a conceptual framework that facilitates comparison across pivotal moments in the history of life (2, 3). It suggests that the same problem arises at each transition: How are the potentially selfish interests of individuals overcome to form mutually dependent cooperative groups? We can then ask whether there are any similarities across transitions in the answers to this problem. Consequently, rather than looking for different explanations for the succession of different taxonomic groups, we ...

show abstract

“…Within a structured population of closely related individuals, however, cooperative traits can be favoured as a public good and facilitate the success of the entire population [29][30][31][32]. This principle of facilitation [33,34] has been shown in populations of various organisms, including bacteria [35], toxigenic cyanobacteria [36], amoeba [37] and yeast [38]. Little is yet known about intraspecific facilitation in populations of planktonic algae.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intraspecific facilitation by allelochemical mediated grazing protection within a toxigenic dinoflagellate population

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Dinoflagellates are a major cause of harmful algal blooms (HABs), with consequences for coastal marine ecosystem functioning and services. Alexandrium fundyense (previously Alexandrium tamarense) is one of the most abundant and widespread toxigenic species in the temperate Northern and Southern Hemisphere and produces paralytic shellfish poisoning toxins as well as lytic allelochemical substances. These bioactive compounds may support the success of A. fundyense and its ability to form blooms. Here we investigate the impact of grazing on monoclonal and mixed set-ups of highly (Alex2) and moderately (Alex4) allelochemically active A. fundyense strains and a non-allelochemically active conspecific (Alex5) by the heterotrophic dinoflagellate Polykrikos kofoidii. While Alex4 and particularly Alex5 were strongly grazed by P. kofoidii when offered alone, both strains grew well in the mixed assemblages (Alex4 þ Alex5 and Alex2 þ Alex5). Hence, the allelochemical active strains facilitated growth of the non-active strain by protecting the population as a whole against grazing. Based on our results, we argue that facilitation among clonal lineages within a species may partly explain the high genotypic and phenotypic diversity of Alexandrium populations. Populations of Alexandrium may comprise multiple cooperative traits that act in concert with intraspecific facilitation, and hence promote the success of this notorious HAB species.

show abstract

Kin preference in a social microbe

Cited by 183 publications

References 8 publications

Evolution of cooperation and control of cheating in a social microbe

Evolution of cooperation and control of cheating in a social microbe

Major evolutionary transitions in individuality

Intraspecific facilitation by allelochemical mediated grazing protection within a toxigenic dinoflagellate population

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About